A Nuclear Free World Won’t Be a Blast

One of the prominent themes throughout this week’s sessions at the United Nations was a nuclear free world. The Security Council passed a resolution today, reaffirming the support for the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). The underlying message, bolstered by President Obama’s remarks, was clear: the guiding policy is to create a world without nuclear weapons. While noble in aim, there are two main questions surrounding the legitimacy of such a policy.

First, there is a question of feasibility. It is highly unlikely that the world community will be able to rid itself of every single nuclear weapon. While many, if not all, nations publically state agreement with this principle, practice is much more difficult. Global insecurity causes hesitation in many leaders. The delicate disarmament negotiations between Russia and the United States are a stark example of this difficulty. Even so, if every party was truly committed to a nuclear free world, the issues of mistrust might eventually be worked out. However, there are many global actors – both state and non-state – that want to possess nuclear weaponry. Terrorist organizations and rogue states would gain much power in a world where the major countries reduce their nuclear stockpiles. The global leaders, such as the US, Russia, Great Britain, France, and China, understand this and are thus hesitant to reduce their arms. The nuclear threat between the US and Russia may be diminishable through negotiations; the nuclear threat from Iran to the US most likely will not be. Furthermore, even if every nuclear weapon is dismantled nuclear technology will still exist. It will be far too easy, and tempting, for countries [particularly when tensions are high] to restart a nuclear program.

The lack of feasibility makes a goal of a nuclear-free world foolish. It is far better to focus on more meaningful controls of nuclear power than disarmament. Nuclear disarmament should be a distant goal behind non-proliferation and increased security measures for nuclear stockpiles. Relatively new nuclear powers, such as Indian and Pakistan, should be assisted in developing internal controls to prevent ‘misplacement’ of nuclear weaponry and technology and failsafes to prevent the use of nuclear weapons in conflict.

Second, it is questionable if it is desirable to have a nuclear-free world. While controversial, there is much support to suggest that nuclear weaponry actually reduces conventional warfare and makes the global community safer. No country has used nuclear weapons since World War II. Conventional wars between major powers have been nonexistent. The threat of nuclear war persuades powerful states to negotiate before launching missiles. The successes of global integration and communication rest on the threat of nuclear destruction. As bad as relationships have been during the past fifty years, the United States, Russia and China have not gone to war with each other.

A nuclear-free world could unravel all of this stability. The threat of a conventional counterattack is not, nor ever has been, significant enough to preclude wars between major powers. While the international and supranational institutions formed over the past 70 years are strong, there is little reason to believe a resurgent Russia would continue to abide by a US dominated system without the nuke as a balancing act. The demise of nuclear power would herald an rise of conventional armies. Our international community would once again see the large scale wars that wrecked havoc across the globe one-hundred years ago.

While seemingly contrary to logic, a nuclear-free world is a lot scarier than one without nuclear weaponry. The presence of nuclear weapons is something the world must accept and work with. Rather than deluding ourselves with utopian views of a nuclear-free world, steps must be taken to create a stable international community where nuclear weapons exist but are not used. A world with few nuclear powers that are stable and in control of their stockpiles is ideal. Any other world is a recipe for disaster.

A Civil Union Between Gay Marriage and Republicans

One social area where the Republican Party needs to reevaluate its stance is the issue of gay marriage. For two major reasons, the GOP is facing a losing battle. For the sake of electoral success, the party needs to reevaluate its current position.

First and foremost, the party is fighting a losing battle. It is inevitable that the rights of gays will grow over time. Currently this is occurring across many states. The inevitability is easy to see if one studies American history. Over time, all minority groups have gained more rights and equal treatment. Even if at one point or another there have been set backs, the overall trend of history is constant. The simple logic behind this is that a minority has a lot to gain by fighting for his or her rights; while relatively speaking the majority does not have a lot to lose by granting those rights. The minority will be able to fight indefinitely; while the majority will eventually tire. Ultimately, the minority will win this war of attrition.

Because of this inevitability it is fruitless for the GOP to waste its time and energy. Not only does it divert resources from other issues and causes, but it puts the party on the losing side of history. This is a cost that is too high to pay. Despite the fact the fact that it was the Republicans that freed African-Americans from slavery, the party is portrayed as the loser in the culture wars and thus, at least for the foreseeable future, precluded from the African-American vote. By fighting gay marriage, the party only provides fodder to the left to incorrectly portray the Republicans as intolerant.

Secondly, the current party stance is inconsistent with the intellectual basis of American conservatism. Conservatives call for a limited government role in the individual’s life. The government should be small and efficient, staying out of the private lives of its citizens. Unlike liberals, conservatives argue that in regards to the vast majority of issues individuals are capable of making their own decisions and leading their own lives as they see fit. However, the current gay marriage platform flies in the face of this. It calls for immense government control over a major part of many American’s lives.

Social conservatives attempt to justify this by turning to their religion and emphasizing the alleged societal costs. The ‘family values’ viewpoint asserts that gay marriage is wrong (according to the Bible) and damaging to society. Accordingly, the standard, historical heterosexual family is the basis of society and needs to continue in order to preserve the integrity and sanctity of the country. However, a modified approach to gay marriage is in no way inconsistent with the strong family values held by the majority of America. Furthermore, a modified approach would be more intellectually consistent with limited government conservatism.

An easy solution would be for the Republican Party to separate the issue of marriage into its two natural components: ceremonial marriage and legal rights. One of the roots of the current problem is that these two issues are intermingled. A logical Republican alternative would be to remove the state from any sort of marriage. If marriage is truly a spiritual and community-based institution it should be left to the churches, mosques, synagogues, and other religious organizations to decide how it functions. What is left is the legal rights component; something that is naturally a function of the state.

Essentially, this allows the state to only play a role in determining the legal rights and obligations of an individual in regards to his or her partner. Everyone can get a civil union from the government- where they can choose one partner with whom they can file taxes, receive employment benefits, make health decisions and the like. The spiritual institution of marriage is then left for private communities and religious organizations to determine.

Critics will claim that this issue can’t be easily compartmentalized in this fashion. The strongest arguments point to supposed societal damages caused by gay partnership. Specifically, raising children is one main issue. However, there are two flaws with this argument. First, many of these rights are already given to gays. For instance, they can often adopt. We have yet to see a breakdown of society or a pervasion of the younger generations as a result. Secondly, there are much broader problems with the American family than sexual orientation. Divorce rates are astronomical and many parents do not have a clue how to raise children. Republicans and America are better served by focusing on educating individuals on how to responsibly build a strong, morally-upright family. Right now we spend far too little time learning about family, child rearing, and inter-spousal relationships – three of the most central facets of American life.

A combination of government civil unions, religious marriages, and increased education to establish strong family values will lead to a better Republican Party. With such a policy the GOP will be able to speak to a wide swath of America. Furthermore, it will maintain an intellectual consistency. Lastly, it will help develop a healthier America.